The problem is not all of us

Phoenix

Reading the most recent threads almost made me quit this forum because I thought I couldn't possibly promote my point of view successfully here, it's so opposite from all of yours.

Then I stopped for a second and noticed something. Everyone's on my side. I agree with the majority of posts in this forum. I remember the reason I originally joined this forum.

We all agree on so much here, why the hell is practically every major multi-page thread devoted to only the issues which divide us the most and capture us in the same old back-and-forth arguments?

When you're fighting against irrationality, you can't win, it just gets stuck in a perpetual cycle, if the person on the other end is sufficiently deluded. And you would have to be deluded too, to keep entertaining them.

It seems a small handful of posters on this forum frequently start an outlandish, undeniably stupid and irrational threads, and we're all so incredulous of it that we flock to counter the argument.

As if we're so concerned for the integrity of this forum. It was this same handful of posters who are so quick to point out that we shouldn't feed the trolls.

This is exactly the same mess our politicians are in, and the same mess all citizens seem to be in.

Why don't we investigate how much we can accomplish when we're all on the same page? Imagine if we broke the DLA's concepts down into nodes, and if we stuck mainly with those nodes all of us agree on. Imagine how many members would be willing to contribute to the website's development!

Then we can give individual people, or small groups of people, separate nodes, representing different points of view and not all agreeing with each other. Now DLA offers readers sound information we can all agree on, and the reader is free to make up their own minds about the rest.

As I like to say, if truth is logical, can't it be successfully conveyed as surely as the rigours of logic are unforgiving?

How much can we build, as a website and a community, remaining within the bounds of what most of us agree with? Maybe not much. But I can tell you one thing, this constant cycle of debunking stupidity only so that more stupidity arises the next day, this is toxic, to the website as a whole and to all of us members individually.

I love watching a gruesome car crash as much as the next person, but when the care's coming towards me I get out of the way. I don't want to come to this website to laugh at how stupid people are, as tempting as it may be, I can get that many other places. I want to come here for something productive! But the website is being killed, if it isn't already dead.

We agree on so many things. The importance and beauty of the environment. The problem of over-consumption. A disdain for simple-minded distractions. A dislike of hypocrisy, fake-ness and mainstream society. A passionate and determined desire to attack life head-on. A fundamental conviction that a successful life takes root at deeper philosophical or spiritual levels rather than on the surface.

NAME ME ONE POPULAR METAL WEBSITE THAT SUCCESSFULLY CONVEYS THESE THEMES AND MERGES THEM WITH THE GREATNESS OF METAL. How grand that would be.

I know these basic truths seem so simple and maybe even trivial to us, but most people don't get it yet, for most people it's very advanced. Oh but that's right let's not try to do the tiniest bit of outreach, let's just kill all those other people.

No metal website is currently doing it, perhaps least of all the DLA because we give it such a bad name. NO METAL WEBSITE EVEN COMES CLOSE TO DOING IT.

You have to walk before you can run. Keep going in circles, or be willing to make compromise and get actually moving, it's your choice.

Why don't we investigate how much we can accomplish when we're all on the same page? Imagine if we broke the DLA's concepts down into nodes, and if we stuck mainly with those nodes all of us agree on. Imagine how many members would be willing to contribute to the website's development!...How much can we build, as a website and a community, remaining within the bounds of what most of us agree with? Maybe not much. But I can tell you one thing, this constant cycle of debunking stupidity only so that more stupidity arises the next day, this is toxic, to the website as a whole and to all of us members individually....We agree on so many things. The importance and beauty of the environment. The problem of over-consumption. A disdain for simple-minded distractions. A dislike of hypocrisy, fake-ness and mainstream society. A passionate and determined desire to attack life head-on. A fundamental conviction that a successful life takes root at deeper philosophical or spiritual levels rather than on the surface.

We agree on so many things. The importance and beauty of the environment. The problem of over-consumption. A disdain for simple-minded distractions. A dislike of hypocrisy, fake-ness and mainstream society. A passionate and determined desire to attack life head-on. A fundamental conviction that a successful life takes root at deeper philosophical or spiritual levels rather than on the surface.

We all agree on so much here, why the hell is practically every major multi-page thread devoted to only the issues which divide us the most and capture us in the same old back-and-forth arguments?

Being aimless, through reducing and focusing on the innumerable tiniest divisible parts, crowds filter out impurities in ideals until Hivemind Oneness is achieved which is an impossible state. So, nothing useful is ever really accomplished by crowds. Maybe it is an evolutionary error in the design of human neurology that affects most but not all of us.

The most relevant for us is what keeps us around as a small message board group and that is only a general big picture ideal. The least useful are the particle sized minutiae which we are expected to believe are cause for great contention but obviously only serve to keep the bored and aimless entertained.

Logged

Phoenix

Hmm, I thought you intended this to be an elite discussion forum, not a place for masses. I have been operating under this assumption. Why maintain a discussion forum serving only to entertain the masses? Are you saying you're not striving for an elite discussion forum because you believe such a thing is inherently impossible? What about a mailing list? A few people in a room? Where do you draw the (arguably imaginary) line?

I agree that people should collaborate and the DLA is the best venue for doing so.

I'm not sure what the bickering and infighting is about.

Then again, I remember the Tarditionalists... people who were so upset that they wanted to assert a belief system no one else understood, and disapprove of everyone else's beliefs, as if they wanted the cause to be hopeless so they could go back to reading their Guenon texts and pretending they were aristocrats.

We get a lot of of that.

The mainstream is a monkeysphere, and going underground just means the monkeys will be harder to spot.

Ever notice how 1/4 of the people on the Internet are literally mental patients?

On a parallel to that, another 1/4 are people who have given up on life but not on having some reason to feel superior to others. For them, nothing is pure enough. You see this in every group, especially white nationalists (if you don't Name The Jew in your motor oil, you're not pure Aryan enough for these Irish-Polish-Italian-German warriors!) and environmentalists. But now it infests here.

You're right to fight back against it, but probably the only real factor of prevalence will be censoring the idiots.

After all, I believe in censorship. Shut up the stupid and keep the good. Natural selection.

Phoenix

You're right to fight back against it, but probably the only real factor of prevalence will be censoring the idiots.

Give me mod powers k pls tks.

On a serious note, if this forum really is meant only as a place for entertainment, I think it's imperative this be indicated somewhere! People who come across ANUS or the DLA may have much to bring to the table and want to contribute, and what if the first access point they engage to join the community is the forum? Clearly there's a high likelihood they'll be deterred.

People who come across ANUS or the DLA may have much to bring to the table and want to contribute, and what if the first access point they engage to join the community is the forum? Clearly there's a high likelihood they'll be deterred.

When you're fighting against irrationality, you can't win, it just gets stuck in a perpetual cycle, if the person on the other end is sufficiently deluded.

We need to be careful when applying the rational and irrational dichotomy. It is rational to have each female straddle each male with two sharing a chair around a limited seating dining area. The eating function can still take place. It is also rational to find some extra seats and squeeze in the extra place settings. Guess which one we always choose without a second thought and which one, although entirely rational, nobody has ever considered before.